Bench:

A Sen, B Ray

Issue :

Whether the appellant was guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 326or under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Facts:

• The appellant is a government school teacher who got into an altercation with Darshan Singh the complainant and struck him with a gandasa in the middle of his head.
• The impact of the injury got cushioned off due to the turban and there were no extensive injuries like deep cutting or multiple fracture of the skull which satisfied the learned Magistrate
• Hence, the learned Magistrate concluded that the case attracts Section 324 of IPC and convicted the appellant of having voluntarily caused a simple injury by a sharp-edged weapon.
• An appeal was filed in the High Court against the acquittal by the learned Magistrate.

Appellant's contentions:

It was contended that the complainant suffered a simple injury attracting Section 324 of IPC as decreed by the learned Magistrate which shall be upheld by the High Court.

Respondent's contentions:

The respondent supported the decision of HC contending that the appeal filed by the appellant shall be dismissed and the offence committed by the appellant attracts provisions of Section 326 of IPC.

Enroll the Course on 'The Indian Penal Code IPC' by Mr. V.K Maheshwari - Click Here

Judgement:

The High Court dismissed the appeal & upheld convicting the appellant under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. It held that“it appears from the evidence that Darshan Singh was putting on a turban when assaulted with the gandasa. What saved him was the turban and it took away the force of the impact leaving a head injury. In the circumstances, there can be no doubt that there was a fracture within the meaning of clause seventhly of Section 320. The High Court was therefore justified in altering the conviction of the appellant from that under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 326.

The appellant is a Teacher in a Government School and the circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on April 22, 1973, some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine shall be deposited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muktsar within a period of one month from today. The amount, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Darshan Singh by way of compensation.”

-Para 6 (Naib Singh V State of Punjab)